>
>Your point about Barthes really interests me. Why you
>should assume that I must know every French writer because
>I'm in a French department (why else would make this
>comment?), is beyond me, but since you've picked on a key
>subject of mine...
i was being sarcastic. my style.
uhmm, gotta be away from the computer for a day or two. i'm grading
finals, etc.
but i will respond later, if the discussions still on.
and effect as a verb: to bing into existence...
and affect as noun: as in the affection for another...
but affection-image is not Affection in the kantian sense
nor is it the word Affect.
you write:
>
>I'm not sure where you originally connected Barthes (and
>Camera Lucida in particular) with German philosophy,
>
then write:
>Barthes uses a more phenomenological approach to
>the photograph in CL (inspired by Hegel/Heidegger, I think,
but I'm prepared to stand corrected),
i don't think we disagree that much...
but you contradict yourself. which is it.
what interests me about heidegger, for example, is his late
wroks concerning language. I like CL because of barthes' attempt
to describe the fluency between "being a subject" and "becoming an object."
language is play. you know, I don't think you can really trust
barthes as a critic. he is playing. he is enjoying language.
that's why i love reading him. at times, i agree with his results.
at other times, i think he doesn't make much sense.
anyway,
take it easy.
gary norris
--
Every visible power is threatened, especially when it
rests on a usurpation that alienates both its victims
and its accomplices. Thus the detective's tactics are
those of the minister and the Chief of State. Power will
be shady or will not be at all. . .
--H de Balzac, Introduction to Une tenebreuse affaire
|